Post by ohaer on Jun 2, 2009 12:48:07 GMT -5
I have been one of those staff attorneys at ODAR for 30 years (nearly), and hope soon to be an ALJ, although it's looking pretty dim for my selection chances now (probably based on geographical preference, rathern than low score). No false modesty here. I'm damn good at what I do. You can ask any of the 50 or so ALJ's I've written for.
Go back and read again Yogibear's comments. The man knows of what he speaks. If I have a message (in addition to congratulations) for the new class it's this: LISTEN TO YOUR STAFF ATTORNEYS AND OLDER PARALEGALS--THEY PROBABLY KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT WILL FLOAT WITH THE AC AND WHAT WON'T. We know you saw the claimant and we didn't. I've put some pretty strong language into decisions, but only when called for and actually very seldom. Most claimants believe what they say, even if it doesn't really look that way at times. We do, however, occasionally get the person who is scamming the system (my favorite was when the protective filing date was more than a week before the alleged onset--a supposed accident). With those few exceptions the claimants generally believe they are telling the truth--at least what they've convinced themselves is the truth. There's no point in being disrepectful. It doesn't to any one any good.
I have one other thing to point out about the content of your decisons: The claimant isn't likely to understand most of what is written in a decision, with the exception of a brief summary of what their testimony was at the hearing. When they read, "At the hearing, the claimant testified......" if they don't understand anything else in the decision. Make sure your writers include at least a brief summary of their testimony. It at least lets the claimant know they were heard during their day in court. I've had many a rep say they appreciated the testimony being set out separately and distinctly at one place in the hearing decision. I think it should be mandatory, even though some of the writer training today says avoid it.
Go back and read again Yogibear's comments. The man knows of what he speaks. If I have a message (in addition to congratulations) for the new class it's this: LISTEN TO YOUR STAFF ATTORNEYS AND OLDER PARALEGALS--THEY PROBABLY KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT WILL FLOAT WITH THE AC AND WHAT WON'T. We know you saw the claimant and we didn't. I've put some pretty strong language into decisions, but only when called for and actually very seldom. Most claimants believe what they say, even if it doesn't really look that way at times. We do, however, occasionally get the person who is scamming the system (my favorite was when the protective filing date was more than a week before the alleged onset--a supposed accident). With those few exceptions the claimants generally believe they are telling the truth--at least what they've convinced themselves is the truth. There's no point in being disrepectful. It doesn't to any one any good.
I have one other thing to point out about the content of your decisons: The claimant isn't likely to understand most of what is written in a decision, with the exception of a brief summary of what their testimony was at the hearing. When they read, "At the hearing, the claimant testified......" if they don't understand anything else in the decision. Make sure your writers include at least a brief summary of their testimony. It at least lets the claimant know they were heard during their day in court. I've had many a rep say they appreciated the testimony being set out separately and distinctly at one place in the hearing decision. I think it should be mandatory, even though some of the writer training today says avoid it.